“If this were a hostage situation, that letter would not qualify as proof of life,” Ackman wrote.
On Sunday, for the first time in the history of the United States, the president used social media to announce that he wouldn’t be running for re-election. Joe Biden did not make a public appearance, or even release a video, leading some to question whether he was behind the decision to drop out of the race in the first place.
Before long, a theory took shape among users on X claiming that the signature on the letter was not actually written by Biden, per the Daily Mail. Comparisons were made to his recent executive orders and other documents, which showed a number of differences. Others questioned why the presidential seal was missing from the letter, and where Joe Biden, who was last seen by the public on Wednesday, was.
As the Daily Mail reports, users pointed to the fact that in the letter, Biden’s signature is underlined, and appears to be missing the “Jr,” both of which set it apart from previous signatures. Also notable was the size of the “R.”
Among those who spread the theory was pro-Trump hedge fund manager and former Democratic donor Bill Ackman.
“One would think that a letter to the American people from the president announcing his decision to step aside would not be signed using a digital signature and would be accompanied by a photo op and a scheduled conference in the morning that followed,” Ackman wrote on X. “Instead we have a digitally signed letter released on the president’s X account, an account we know that is run by a staffer, no photo, and no live scheduled address to the American people.”
Ackman went on to share a post from a user highlighting the aforementioned differences in the signatures. “There’s no way,” the user wrote. “Biden didn’t even sign the letter.”
In the letter, Biden said he “will speak to the Nation later this week in more detail about my decision,” though no specifics have been announced.
More at:
Succession by Defenestration: How Biden’s Withdrawal May Trigger a 25th Amendment Fight
President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw as the Democratic Party’s nominee solved an immediate problem for his party. Biden has plummeted in the polls as the vast majority of voters concluded that he is too diminished by age to serve another term. Yet, it has now created several new problems, including the obvious problem of a president who is viewed as incapable of running for an office that he continues to hold.
The Democratic Party essentially created its own political version of the 25th Amendment in forcing Biden off the ticket. This decision was about as voluntary as leaving a building by way of a window on the 46th floor. That is particularly the case when you are thrown out of the window by your closest friends.
The unseemly image of succession by defenestration will soon be whitewashed by a media that will praise Biden after weeks of declaring him incompetent and enfeebled.
That, however, leaves the lingering question after the fall. How can Biden remain in office when he is incapable of running for the office?
Biden is notably vague about the reason for his withdrawal after maintaining for days that he will be the party’s nominee. He simply says that it is in the best interests of the country.
The Democratic establishment has two equally unappealing options.
First, it could argue that Biden was withdrawing out of recognition that he is no longer politically viable. But that makes a mockery out of the democratic process. Millions of people went through the primary elections to select him as their nominee. Now he would be set aside and replaced by a vote of the party establishment like a shift in the Russian politburo.
Second, it could admit that Biden was, as stated for weeks in the media and by figures like Special Counsel Robert Hur, greatly diminished both mentally and physically. However, that makes this withdrawal an admission that could trigger a fight under the 25th Amendment.
The development could create a new constitutional controversy. The 25th Amendment was written with largely physical disabilities in mind. If a president is comatose, the incapacity is obvious and Section 4 allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to sign a declaration to Congress that a president is incapable of holding office.
However, Harris is eager to avoid the image of Brutus in the dispatching of the president. To support such a declaration would risk Biden proclaiming “Et tu, Kamala?” to the nation. The key to succession by defenestration is not to be seen as the hand that pushes the president out the window. Politics follows the same rules as the mafia for capo di tutti i capi: Kill a don, never be a don. While sometimes honored in the breach in the mob, it is hardly an auspicious path for a politician.
There is, however, another intriguing possibility.
Section 4 provides that a president’s fitness can be put before Congress when the “Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide.”
Previously Democrats have cited that language to suggest that they could create their own body to force former President Donald Trump out of office. Indeed, Rep. Jaime Raskin (D-Md.) sponsored legislation called the Oversight Commission on Presidential Capacity Act to create a commission empowered to examine a president to Congress on the president’s capacity. It would circumvent the necessity of getting Harris to be the primary hand that dispatched a president.
The question is whether Congress will now make this decision to warrant an investigation or even a Raskin-like bill.
This is different than President Lyndon Johnson’s decision on March 31, 1968, that “I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”
That was before any primaries. In this case, Biden won a primary in which the Democratic Party obstructed anyone who would challenge him and barred any debate.
Millions voted for him, and tens of millions of dollars were contributed to his campaign. He is now withdrawing weeks before accepting the nomination. That unprecedented decision alone would warrant a House investigation into Biden’s continuing capacity to serve in an office that he no longer believes he can run to occupy after January 2025.
Before this decision, a special counsel cited President Biden’s diminished faculties as a reason not to indict him for unlawfully retaining and handling classified material. Now, the president is effectively saying that, in addition to being allegedly too diminished to be prosecuted, he is too diminished to run for the office that he currently holds.
The question is whether Biden has ended the fight to retain his nomination only to trigger a fight to retain his office.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
More at:
More Stories
Senator Chris Murphy Thinks Government Regulation of the Internet Would Prevent the Public From Electing Another Donald Trump (VIDEO)
Late Friday Trump Bombshell: US Makes Deal For ‘Permanent Control’ Over Greenland’s Security
‘Big Short’ Maven Michael Burry Argues AI Companies Are Hyping Panic To Cover For Slowing Growth In The Industry